Thread 719775667

Why do retards keep thinking games were cheaper in the past?

Except back then you got the full package without microtransations or cut content resold to you as DLC.

DEBUNKED

>>719775824
Did I stutter?

>>719775895
>have to re-buy the entire game to play Vergil
You didn't stutter, but you should have, since you're retarded.

I guess people valued videogames more back then. Times change, gramps.

>>719775741
If you factor in the DLC, then you're paying the same price.
You're getting base games for cheaper than you did in 2001.

Come on, my dude.

>>719775990
Did you miss the part that games now cost 80 dollars and DLC isn't 10 bucks? You're NOT paying the same price, you're paying easily double that.

God damn, is everybody in this thread except me literally brainfucked retarded? Come on guys, get your shit together.

>>719775990
Why should I give a fuck what people paid before? I wouldn't even pay 50 for your slop in today's money, let alone 80 or whatever the fuck you're asking.

>>719775667 (OP)
Why do retards think I care about the past and jewish economic theory? They're too expensive and I simply won't buy them.

>>719775667 (OP)
you're also forgetting that those 50$ just straight up got you way more stuff
i remember when 20€ at Lidl would make my shopping cart spill over at the top, now it barely fills two bags.

>>719775667 (OP)
How many games were 50$ in 2001? The only games I remember were some FPS game that nobody bought because it was so expensive, and the box was left on the shelf for months in my local store, and I think comandos 2 was expensive, but not 50$ expensive.

Oh, also all those games came with a box, were included on the media inside, so you could play imidiately, no internet required, no microtransactions, booklets, posters, and other freebies in the box.
If you start adding all that, then sure, I am willing to pay 70-90$ for games.

>>719775667 (OP)
Games featured more content with your regular purchase, usually with well designed manuals or little artbooks.
Also, inflation calculators are not entirely accurate. Use things like gold or (funnily enough) McDonalds prices if you want better inflation rates in the US.

>>719775990
Brosky, the DLC in 2001 was a full fucking game. Look at games like homm, the DLC was more of the game than the base game most of the time.
Not only that, it would come on CDs, no internet connection required, and you could do whatever you wanted with your copy, even resell it without any issues. Since you know, you actually OWNED what you BOUGHT. Both of those concepts have been replaced by RENT, which is clearly a lower value proposition, and yet we pay the same amount of money for it.

>>719776723
>usually with well designed manuals or little artbooks
i miss this shit so much
everytime I use my Vita I'm always happy seeing a game include digital manuals, most of them being stylized or something
sure they're usually pretty simple but that was better than literally nothing

>>719776723
No fucking shot on god that a big mac was 65 cents. Let me guess, it was actually big too?

You kids have never bought $80 SNES carts like Chrono Trigger when it was released.

because the way you people use inflation is dishonest.

I'm convinced inflation is completely made up Jewish bullshit

>>719776876
Some of us did.
You know what we also did, (not chrono trigger, never had that), but you know what we also did, swapped that game afterwards, or resold it for 50-60$.

>>719776876
You're essentially correct. The only cartidge console I had was the Atari Home Console, or 2600 for you youngsters, and that's because my parents had that.
I always bought consoles that I knew they are easy to crack and play pirated games on. Games were too expensive for my blood.

>>719776108
>Did you miss the part that games now cost 80 dollars
see>>719775667 (OP)

>>719775667 (OP)
I don't think inflation should exist.

>>719775667 (OP)
$50 dollars for most things back in 2001 went further, day at the zoo for a family of 3 or 4 could run $50-$100 if you didn't overspend. Picrel when I was a kid in 2002 compared to 2025 for the Zoo.

>>719776765
You can still resell console games.

>>719777109
I don't think you understand what inflation entails.

>>719777120
Really? How many are not being tied to your account? How many come with activation codes?

>>719777201
I don't know what you are getting at, wages haven't balanced out completely with inflation. Back at that time $50 dollars could easily load up an entire shopping cart, now not even half of a shopping cart. Games in comparison to most things haven't risen too high in price but now you got Rockstar wanting games to be $100 which is long overdue unfortunately.

>>719777243
>How many are not being tied to your account?
All of them.

>How many come with activation codes?
None of them.

(prices are AUD, before anybody has an aneurysm).

>>719777201
>get x amount per week
>spend z amount of groceries and non-vidya leisure
>X - Z is larger in 2002 than it is now

>>719777349
>Back at that time $50 dollars could easily load up an entire shopping cart
Because 50$ back then is WORTH 90$ now.
Imagine it like it's a commodity per se, like gold. 5g of gold got you less back then than 5g of gold today. Gold increased in value. Currency decreased in VALUE.

>>719776843
Yes, it was bigger than the crap they sell nowadays

>>719776843
a can of coke or pepsi was 5c

>>719775667 (OP)
No battle pass, monthly pass, cosmetic pack, holiday pack, additional in game purchases.

>>719775667 (OP)
i made this post when talking about the switch 2's price but the same general argument applies every single time one of you morons brings up inflation as part of your retarded (You) farming

>>719777712
see>>719775824

>>719775667 (OP)
Games aren't as niche anymore and they have wider market share in the entertainment market.

The means of getting their product to consumer is also infinitely cheaper now. Game production is also a lot more stream lined unless they're actually revolutionizing gameplay.

Gta probably will end up deserving its price with how much cash theyre throwing down into development. Vs Nintendo that just patent trolls and has their games looking the same for the last 15 years but still increasing prices.

>>719775990
>You're getting base games for cheaper than you did in 2001.
Considering it's a license now instead of ownership, and a non-physical product with no overhead for production and distribution, it better fucking be cheaper.

>>719777713
That doesn't refute inflation.
It's just a little bitch crying that he's poor.

>>719777767
>and a non-physical product with no overhead for production and distribution
see>>719777532

>Considering it's a license now instead of ownership
You never 'owned' your games. Go ahead and read the fine print on a disc of MGS2 or something.
Stupid kids, don't know a lick of business law.

Good thing that wealth and income magically scale proportionally to inflation, otherwise that would be kinda jewish.

Maybe instead of screwing consumers over these companies should be fighting the kikes that devalue the currency they're printing endlessly.

>>719777926
Communist.

>>719776723
>Games featured more content with your regular purchase,
no the fuck they did not

>>719775667 (OP)
>muh inflation
Wages are stagnant

>>719777984
find the page on FRED supporting this claim

>>719777980
Show me the booklet you got with your last purchase.
Now you have to buy "premium" versions, and some of those still contain less.

>>719777984
>>719777926
>video game companies should fix the issue of national wage stagnation
What do they teach kids these days? It certainly isn't logic.

>>719778062
god who fucking cares go buy some funko pops

>>719778062
>game in 2025 costs 80$
>game in 2001 costs 90$ (inflation adjusted)
>game in 2025 doesn't give you a manual
Would you buy that manual for 10$? Yes? Then I have good news for you! You can buy the premium version.

>>719776723
They had more physical components yes (instruction manual, disc case, sometimes paper extras, etc.) but the actual GAME had a fraction of content modern games do and it's not even close. If that content is good or not is a different story but don't pretend a SNES or PS1 has the same amount of depth or hours of gameplay that even a moderate indie game has today, it's not even close.

>>719775667 (OP)
I'm convinced these threads are some gay assed psyop trying to get people comfortable with paying more for games.

>>719775667 (OP)
>AI Summary
>To understand the average price of SNES games in 2000, consider the following points: The average price ranged from $20 to $50 per game.
>Popular titles like "Super Mario World" and "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past" often cost more.
>To understand the average price of Genesis games in 2000, consider the following points:
>The average price ranged from $20 to $30 for most titles.
20 buck triple-A games...

>>719775667 (OP)
>Inflation
Compare WAGES retard
Also digital is much cheaper, you transfer data over a preexisting internet cable while with physical you're involving making fuckloads of plastic, putting data on that plastic and then delivering it everywhere

>>719778363
>>719778027

>>719778363
cds were always cheap as shit to make you're paying the developer for their work, retard

Now imagine 20 buck game resold...or borrowed..10-5 bucks. it's over...

>>719778452
They're nowhere near as cheap as sending files over the internet
And video game market has gotten bigger and making your game popular has only gotten easier

>>719775667 (OP)
>inflation calculator

>>719779247
>video game market has gotten bigge
you relize this supports my argument right
like an actual high schooler understands this better than you

>>719778223
Do ALL newer games, as in every single one without any exceptions, have more content than ALL older games? No? Then I'd rethink the point you're making.
Are you trying to point out that a ubisoft AC game with hundreds of hours in boring collectibles deserves the price increase as opposed to an older game with less collectibles simply because of numerical increase in ""content""?
Even though some old Harvest Moon games (for example) easily trumps newer collect-a-thons in supposed hours of content? If you've been playing games for a while, I'm sure you will be able to note atleast one or two older franchises with way more content than some concurrent games.

Your assumption is simply categorically wrong. Not to mention that you open up a quite weird topic in how one would rate "content" objectively, because I can guarantee that (You) don't enjoy every hour of gameplay for every game the same way.

>>719777713
>check my country
>wages actually went down since 2000

>>719775667 (OP)
>buy game
>play it for as long as you want
>sell it at a flea market for about 70% of the full price or trade it in for a different game
It's a mystery.

>>719775667 (OP)
Dea Babel Media, I shant be paying 70$ for AAA.
In fact I wont even pay more than 40$.

>>719775741
>Except back then you got the full package
Back then, the "full package" was four hours long and cost $80.

>>719775667 (OP)
>back then
>game was 100% in the box
>plenty of hours of content, care, and love put into it
>today
>game is 40% in the box
>half was cut before release because budget savings am I right
>the other half of what made it was cut out and sold back to you as DLC that is 30x more expensive than it should be, we're talking a price of a game for just a blue skin
>microtransactions
>ads in games
>sponsors in games

Reminder, hollow knight was $15 and provided at its base 20~25 hours of game, and its DLC push that to 80. The whole thing is less than $30.
Silksong is only $20.

you dont HAVE to pay $100 for a game.

>>719777713
god you niggers fucking LOVE being miserable
your own fucking source shows REAL US WAGES INCREASING OVER TIME, which means WAGES BEAT INFLATION.
https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?df[ds]=DisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_EARNINGS%40AV_AN_WAGE&df[ag]=OECD.ELS.SAE&dq=......&pd=2000%2C&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false&vw=tb
Here's another one!
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
Riddle me this! How come the line doesn't trend towards a 0% or negative change?
Hint: in case you don't know what "real" means (you probably don't because you don't know what PPP means either), real means adjusted for inflation, which is measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). It's called that because it measures the change in price of normal consumer goods. So if the nominal increase in wages was less than the devaluation of money caused by inflation, what would be the trend in REAL wages?

>>719780678
>I'm poor

>>719776532
found the broke ass nigga

>>719775667 (OP)
don't care still not buying goyslop for $80+ dollars